Foundations of Science

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 205–221

Ungrounded Dispositions in Quantum Mechanics

Article

Abstract

General metaphysical arguments have been proposed in favour of the thesis that all dispositions have categorical bases (Armstrong; Prior, Pargetter, Jackson). These arguments have been countered by equally general arguments in support of ungrounded dispositions (Molnar, Mumford). I believe that this controversy cannot be settled purely on the level of abstract metaphysical considerations. Instead, I propose to look for ungrounded dispositions in specific physical theories, such as quantum mechanics. I explain why non-classical properties such as spin are best interpreted as irreducible dispositional properties, and I give reasons why even seemingly classical properties, for instance position or momentum, should receive a similar treatment when interpreted in the quantum realm. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, I argue that quantum dispositions should not be limited to probabilistic dispositions (propensities) by showing reasons why even possession of well-defined values of parameters should qualify as a dispositional property. I finally discuss the issue of the actuality of quantum dispositions, arguing that it may be justified to treat them as potentialities whose being has a lesser degree of reality than that of classical categorical properties, due to the incompatibility relations between non-commuting observables.

Keywords

Dispositions Grounding Quantum mechanics Incompatibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albert D. (1992) Quantum mechanics and experience. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong D. (1968) A materialistic theory of the mind. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bigaj T. (2010) How to (properly) strengthen Bell’s theorem using counterfactuals. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41: 58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bird A. (1998) Dispositions and antidotes. Philosophical Quarterly 48: 227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bird A. (2007) Nature’s metaphysics. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dorato M. (2007) Dispositions, relational properties and the quantum world. In: Kistler M., Gnassounou B. (eds) Dispositions and causal powers. Ashgate, England, pp 249–270Google Scholar
  7. Dorato M., Esfeld M. (2010) GRW as an ontology of dispositions. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 41: 41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellis B. (2001) Scientific essentialism. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Fara, M. (2009). Dispositions. In E. N. Zalta (Ed), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2009 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/dispositions/.
  10. Hughes R. (1989) The structure and interpretation of quantum mechanics. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Martin C. B. (1994) Dispositions and conditionals. Philosophical Quarterly 44: 1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mellor D. (1974) In defense of dispositions. Philosophical Review 83: 157–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Molnar G. (2003) Powers: A study in metaphysics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Mumford S. (1998) Dispositions. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Mumford S. (2006) The ungrounded argument. Synthese 149(3): 471–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mumford S. (2007) Filled in space. In: Kistler M., Gnassounou B. (eds) Dispositions and causal powers. Ashgate, England, pp 67–80Google Scholar
  17. Prior E., Pargetter R., Jackson F. (1982) Three theses about dispositions. American Philosophical Quarterly 19: 251–257Google Scholar
  18. Stapp H. P. (1997) Nonlocal character of quantum theory. American Journal of Physics 65: 300–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stapp H. P. (2004) A Bell-type theorem without hidden variables. American Journal of Physics 72: 30–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Suárez M. (2004) Quantum selections, propensities and the problem of measurement. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55(2): 219–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Suárez M. (2007) Quantum propensities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38: 418–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Thomson-Jones, M. (unpublished manuscript). Dispositions and quantum mechanics.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyWarsaw UniversityWarsawPoland

Personalised recommendations